OPERATION BITE: Russian Sources Say Iran Sneak Attack Planned for April 6

[reprehensor]

Just received this in my email box from the co-author of George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, Webster G. Tarpley. Tarpley notes speculation that the Russian reports signify a high-level leak from the Kremlin, designed to scuttle the attack. If true, the Russian reports raise a host of significant issues, from security leaks at home or abroad, to the state of mind of this administration. -r.

OPERATION BITE: APRIL 6 SNEAK ATTACK BY US FORCES AGAINST IRAN PLANNED, RUSSIAN MILITARY SOURCES WARN

General Ivashov calls for emergency session of UN Security Council to Ward off Looming US Aggression

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington DC, March 25 --

The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 AM on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for twelve hours, according to Uglanov, lasting from 4 AM until 4 PM local time. Friday is a holiday in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and the for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran’s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was re-issued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Putin, is currently the Vice President of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “ Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, who would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,” he commented.

“Moscow must exert Russia’s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html

[yourout]

1. If he goes after Iran Bush may very well get Impeached.

At least I hope there is that much common sense left in Washington.

[leftchick]

3. ya think?

:rofl:

[leftchick]

2. aren't we so glad pelosi and crew gave the go ahead for this sort of attack?

:puke:

Thank you for the link. I find this very credible indeed.

[Donnachaidh]

5. nice spin.

you sound like a republican. :sarcasm:

[WillyT]

37. Yeah... I Still Don't Get That, And It May Come Back To Bite The Dems...

in the ass!!! So to speak.

From The Nation - John Nichols

<snip>

Here's how the Speaker messed up:

The Democratic proposal for a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq included a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before using military force in Iran. It was an entirely appropriate piece of the Iraq proposal, as the past experiences of U.S. involvement in southeast Asia and Latin America has well illustrated that when wars bleed across borders it becomes significantly more difficult to end them. Thus, fears about the prospect that Bush might attack Iran are legitimately related to the debate about how and when to end the occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Pelosi is so desperate to advance her flawed spending legislation that she is willing to bargain with any Democrat about any part of the proposal.

Under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groupings that want war with Iran and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC), Pelosi agreed on Monday to strip the Iran provision from the spending bill that has become the House leadership's primary vehicle for challenging the administration's policies in the region.

One of the chief advocates for eliminating the Iran provision, Nevada Democrat Shelley Berkley, said she wanted it out of the legislation because she wants to maintain the threat of U.S. military action as a tool in seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. "It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," explained Berkley.

The problem with Berkley's "reasoning" -- if it can be called that -- is this: Nothing in the provision that had been included in the spending bill would have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. Nothing in the provision would have prevented war with Iran. It merely reminded the president that, before launching such an attack, he would need to obey the Constitutional requirement that he seek a declaration of war.

By first including the provision and then removing it, Pelosi and her aides have given Bush more of an opening to claim that he does not require Congressional approval.

<snip>

Link: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=174804

:banghead:

[Alexander]

4. How many times has a different Iran invasion date been posted here?

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Ezlivin]

23. Hell, we'll ALL believe it when we see it

I like to be prepared, but a lot of Chicken Little stuff makes me dubious about further claims.

Last year Seymour Hersh said we were going to attack Iran before the summer. Tick, tock. Maybe his warning "prevented" the attack, but how are we supposed to evaluate that?

[MasonJar]

6. If he does this, he must be impeached.

[shadowknows69]

7. Fuck me running

I realize this source is dubious but can you imagine if the lunatic actually goes through with it? Our Navy probably has orders drawn to unleash a barrage the likes of which this world has never seen. Gulf I and Shock and awe combined will look like a country town fireworks display. Then the hidden cells in the U.S. will come to play and all those 24 fans will have a chance to "Be like Jack". Can't wait. Anyone have a cyanide tab I can borrow?

[redacted]

16. This source is dubious?

[shadowknows69]

19. The russian information agency?

Ok, maybe I'm dating myself as a child of the cold war but yeah. That being said I'd say there's at least a 60% chance it's completely true.

[blues90]

8. I have only seen perhaps three dates of attacks here on DU

ONe was the Oct surprise and one in feb - april or spring .

So I don't know what will happen , the constant drumbeat does not seem to vanish and most reports or info are from credited people .

I suppose we will see soon enough .

[durtee librul]

9. Regardless of if it is true

or not, Bush....well, let's face it folks. It's inevitable if we leave him in office much longer. It's just a matter of time.

[dkofos]

10. Only 12 days to go. I can hardly wait.

[freedomfries]

11. dangerous games with unlikely allies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x469753

[gulfcoastliberal]

12. Didn't the dems waive the constitutional role of congress regarding this?

I remember some threads about how the dems removed language that required bush to have congressional approval to attack Iran.

[bonito]

15. Yep

here http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/?pid=174760

[hootinholler]

18. That would be the neocon interpretation of it.

Congress was going to add words to require explicit permission, but balked because they wouldn't have had the votes. It should in no way convey permission to attack, but I doubt the neocons see it that way.

-Hoot

[JackRiddler]

48. The Congress by now surely understands...

that allowing such an interpretation to the neocons is tantamount to giving them permission.

[FVZA_Colonel]

21. hootinholler is right.

Though that language was deleted, that does not change the fact that the resulting bill was in no way a granting of authority to attack Iran. He will still have to approach congress if he does not wish to be accused of violating the constitution. That is, of course, if there turns out to be any truth to this, which I am a bit skeptical of.

[mike_c]

56. it isn't needed-- the War Powers resolution gives Bush the authority...

...to attack first, and consult Congress afterward.

[leftchick]

27. Yes , once again it is clear sailing for the chimp to start another war!!

go opposition party! :puke:

[roamer65]

13. Wag the dog...Wag the dog...Wag the dog.

I fully expect * to attack Iran to try to stop the focus on his corrupt admin.

[shadowknows69]

14. I've never heard a definitive date from troops in my taxi

only that the war itself is a certainty and Iraq as a staging ground has been the plan all along.

[kitty1]

17. This might explain the capture of the British Marines....

Maybe they sense something is going down. Hense, The Iranian P.M. cancelling his appearance at the U.N. and the Russians making a fast exit out of Iran.
Now the the U.N. has ruled on sanctions against Iran, It could be the Iranians are taking desperate measures to get some leverage and information.
Is there a lot more activity going on in Diego Garcia. I would think a build up of artillary might be a clue as to whether anything is happening.

[JohnLocke]

20. Webster G. Tarpley is a rather unreliable conspiracy-theory source.

[JackRiddler]

22. Webster G. Tarpley is merely quoting the linked articles from RIA Novosti...

...a Russian News & Information Service. Which are linked in French. Can you read French? Tell us what they say. The sources are Russian General Ivashov and the journalist, Uglanov. Anyone can quote them. If you wish to impeach the credibility of the sources for this story, you have to tell us about Ivashov and Uglanov. Your peremptory characterization of Tarpley is irrelevant.

[KittyWampus]

32. so a French link to a Russian link to an English language link?

LOL.

[knitter4democracy]

24. Why do they always mess up Easter?

Clinton did it in the Balkans (bombed churches and monasteries on Orthodox Easter when the bishops and Serbian patriarch were allies), and Bush did it when he started the Iraq war (too close to Easter to make anyone comfortable with the feast). Now, he might be doing it again? Sheesh! What is it about Easter?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

35. It's a Holiday. Amerikuns can't spoil BBQ plans to protest. n/t

[knitter4democracy]

36. Maybe it's easier for a news blackout?

People don't tend to keep up around a holiday like Easter.

[The Magistrate]

25. The Sixth Of April, Sir

Will be a mild and sunny day, on which absolutely nothing of signifigance will occur....

[kimmerspixelated]

30. I hope your right.

[The Magistrate]

49. You May Depend Upon It, Sir

The old crow on the power-line behind my home has never played me false in these matters....

[Big Pappa]

39. I

agree with all except there will some isolated showers.

[truedelphi]

79. Aren't you also figuring that it won't be Easter?

Everyone in my neighborhood had their egg hunts and new clothers and Peeps all over the place this past weekend!

[Selatius]

26. The fact that it leaked leads me to conclude the attack is pushed back or abandoned.

You don't have the element of surprise when the Russians got the drop on you.

[kimmerspixelated]

31. Maybe the russians are OUR friends!

meaning the American people!

[moodforaday]

41. They're not Americans' friends

But the Russians are friendly with Iran. Can't blame them, really.

[JohnyCanuck]

28. They probably really do want war with Iran

if only to try to prove to themselves their clusterfuck in Iraq was an aberration and they really, really do know what the hell they're doing.

White House ‘Reprimanded Swiss Ambassador’ For Delivering 2003 Iranian Offer For Negotiations

In an interview with Democracy Now, Trita Parsi — former congressional aide to ex-Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) — disclosed more details about his recent revelation that an Iranian offer for negotiations with the Bush administration was delivered to senior political adviser Karl Rove in 2003.

According to Parsi, Rove confirmed receipt of the Iranian offer two hours after it was delivered to him, calling it “intriguing.” Subsequently, Parsi claims there was a “discussion about this at the highest level in the Bush administration.” Hard-liners, led by Dick Cheney, immediately rejected it, even going so far as to “reprimand the Swiss ambassador for having delivered it.”

snip

TRITA PARSI: Well, according to many people that I have interviewed in the Bush administration, they did have a discussion about this at the highest level in the Bush administration, and basically the hard line of the Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld basically ensured that they would not proceed with the negotiations. In fact, they actually reprimanded the Swiss ambassador for having delivered it.

And the argument by the hardliners, the hawks in the Washington — in the White House at the time was basically that Iran is weak and it’s giving this proposal precisely because of the fact that it is fearful of the United States and that the US can achieve more by taking on the Iranian regime and just removing it than by negotiating. So we had this situation in which, back then, because of America’s strength, the Bush administration argued that it could not negotiate.

And we have the opposite situation right now. Now, the Bush administration is saying that because it’s weak, it cannot negotiate. But if you can’t negotiate when you’re strong, because you’re strong, and you can’t negotiate when you’re weak, because you’re weak, that basically means that you’re not interested in negotiations at all.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/parsi-iran-offer/

[Little Wing]

29. FRIDAY!

:bounce:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

33. Are We Really Reading This? FUCK THIS MAL-ADMINISTRATION!

We have no right to do this. The keyboards of dissent, apparently are impotent. This is not my government!

[thethinker]

34. I don't how many of you will remember

but when the Iraq war first started, there was a source on the internet that got daily reports from inside Russia. They were always more accurate than what was reported in the American press.

My guess would be that Russia would not be going public with this unless they knew for sure it was true.

[JackRiddler]

38. So why was this dungeonized?

Because, when he writes about a Russian general's warning relating to an imminent attack on Iran... someone might remember that Tarpley also writes non-OCT stuff about 9/11?

[redacted]

43. non-OCT? What's that mean?

Haven't heard that one before and I've been here at DU for 4 years.

[redacted]

44. What does this story have to do with 911?

WHY is it in this forum? I expected it would be in the top 5 by now.

:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[JackRiddler]

47. Nothing directly.

But the US author of the article (which is nothing more than a re-do of what the Russian sources say) is also the author of "911: Synthetic Terrorism, Made in USA." I think the thesis is clear in his title. So, I guess, the name Tarpley is enough to have it bumped here.

[Bryan Sacks]

45. OCT= "Official Conspiracy Theory" n/t

[JackRiddler]

46. OCT=Official Conspiracy Theory of the 9/11 attacks.

Would you like a definition? Here's one in proper legal language.

http://justicefor911.org/Part_I_Complaint_111904.php

5. All official investigations took for granted a certain set of a priori and unquestioned assumptions, which are summarized for your examination in the list below. These items constitute what has come to be called the "official story" of 9/11 as it was portrayed to the press and the people immediately after the attacks. But evidence presented elsewhere in this Complaint and Petition casts serious doubt on the veracity of the assumptions set forth in this list in the minds of many:

a. The 9/11 plotters intended to hijack no more than four planes, which were commandeered and flown by 19 Middle Eastern hijackers. Their identities were resolved conclusively in the hours and days immediately after the attacks and have never since been in doubt.<6>

b. The 9/11 plot was set into motion and financed by a network surrounding Osama bin Ladin, without direct financial backing from his wealthy family or other Saudi agents, and without the participation, involvement, accessorial conduct or knowledge of any states or state agents, either foreign or domestic, prior to or during the plot's execution.<7>

c. No US officials could possibly have had actionable foreknowledge of the plot, for if they did they "would have moved heaven and earth" to intervene.

d. Investigation into the actions and behavior of US government agents and Bush Administration officials could not possibly uncover any greater level of culpability than unintentional failures of intelligence, communication or surveillance, or at worst individual incompetence or negligence. And further, since any questions of foreknowledge, acquiescence, or accessorial criminality were never to be contemplated by the Kean Commission, its investigations could without difficulty be supervised by a former high-level adviser to the present Bush Administration—despite the obvious conflicts of interest of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, and virtually every other member of the Kean Commission (see, Appendix 6).

e. Suppression of relevant facts regarding 9/11 has been an undeniable necessity of national security; no elements within the US government or Administration would exercise pressure or influence<8> to avoid certain avenues of investigation or bodies of evidence in the probes carried out by the Justice Department, Congress, the National Institute for Standards and Technology ("NIST"), the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), the General Accounting Office, the CIA, and the Kean Commission.

f. No reports from foreign governments, agencies or news services alleging facts directly contradicting those set forth by official US sources need be examined or explored.

g. The catastrophic collapses of the World Trade Center's North and South Towers were solely due to the plane strikes and fire.

h. It is not to be considered problematic that World Trade Center Building 7 was the first steel-beam skyscraper in history to collapse solely from the effects of fire. No serious investigation of this mysterious collapse is required despite the fact that its owner appeared to admit on national television that it was "pulled" (i.e., purposely demolished).

i. The anthrax poisonings and attempted poisonings of elected representatives and media figures were carried out by an as-yet unidentified lone scientist without the knowledge or support of any state agency or agents. Moreover, these rogue attacks had no coordination or connection to the 9/11 plot, did not influence any 9/11 inquiries, and did not appreciably affect the post-9/11 balance of domestic political power.

http://justicefor911.org/Part_I_Complaint_111904.php

[seemslikeadream]

40. I've been waiting for something to happen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFowNFvmUxw



I've been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that youve seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war

And theres a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs

On the radio talk shows and the t.v.
You hear one thing again and again
How the u.s.a. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can't take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

Theres a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we cant even say the names

They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they're never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire


Bush's Inconceivable Interest in Iran Sat Apr-01-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=819437

Senior U.S. Officials “Want to Hit Iran”Tue Apr-04-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=844418

Larisa Alexandrovna: CHENEY TAPS IRANIAN ARMS DEALER FOR IRAN TALKS Thu Apr-20-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=977234

Seymour Hersh said something startling about Rumsfeld on Democracy Now Fri Aug-18-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1936421

So former DLC, PNAC member Abram Shulsky feeding Cheney info on Iran?Sat Aug-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1944614

Fuck. Iran has started "war games." Escalation may only be expected.Sun Aug-20-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1949812

Attack on Iran is ComingSun Aug-27-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1993284

"Grave threat". Yes, it's deja vu all over again.Thu Aug-31-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2022620

UN attacks US nuclear report on Iran erroneous misleading unsubstantiatedSun Sep-17-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2159951

We Are Conducting Military Operations Inside Iran Right NowTue Sep-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2168218

Navy told: Prepare to blockade Iran by Oct 1Mon Sep-18-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2161779

Pentagon Iran Office Mimics Former Iraq OfficeWed Sep-20-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2179484

“This is the largest massing of military power in the region, and it is gathering for a reason.”Sat Nov-18-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2753952

Seymour Hersh: Cheney Says 'Whether Or Not Dems Win-NO STOPPING Military Option With Iran'Sun Nov-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2757350

Does anyone still believe the US will launch a full scale invasion of Iran?Mon Dec-04-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2856177

Saudi clerics rally support for Sunnis and Saudi ambassador Abruptly ResignsTue Dec-12-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2902643

Act III in a Tragedy of Many Parts - The US Occupation of IraqSun Dec-17-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2935498

Century Foundation Iran White Paper Series Fundamentalists, Pragmatists and the Rights of the NationTue Dec-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2948146

Oh shitTue Dec-19-06
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2944423

[nam78_two]

42. Already dungeonized?

:eyes:
Oh well I am too late to recommend it I guess, but thats scary....
:kick:

[arikara]

57. I think they automatically toss anything

posted by reprehensor into the dungeon now out of habit.

At least I can give it a kick.

[HuffleClaw]

50. with no reason? i doubt it.

unless bushco. can 'find' a quick justification in the next few days i say this is a bogus story. i doubt they are gonna hand over intimate details of an attack plan to moscow either.

[CGowen]

51. I remember Tarpley telling on his radio show that the French satellite pictures

show the surge is 10 times higher than said or the massing of troops in SE Iraq is so high.

I couldn't find the report on the Internet.






So a 12 hours air attack, according to the links.


http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

[CGowen]

52. Exclusive: Embassies in Teheran prepare escape plans

Several foreign embassies in Teheran are updating their emergency evacuation plans should a Western or Israeli attack on Iran occur.

According to foreign sources, foreign diplomats believe a possible attack would take place before the end of 2007. By that time, Iran might have enough enriched uranium to cause a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe from radioactive fallout should its nuclear facilities be damaged or destroyed in an attack.

Embassies in all countries generally have evacuation plans for their staff, but foreign sources describe the general atmosphere in Iran as one of heightened preparedness. Recently, several diplomatic missions based in Teheran have begun to reassess their plans, and embassies without permanent security officers have requested them.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879153851&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[autorank]

53. I've been offline- GREAT Post Reprenehsor!

OK, I don't want to see this happen and you never know about those former superpowers, they lie a lot (e.g., Great Britain).

However, if true, we won't have * to kick around any more. Actually, we won't have much of anything. But we will have the satisfaction of knowing, * will be impeached by acclamation.

We'll hope for the best. I don't see this coming off without some in-house intervention.

Excellent. Sorry I wasn't in time to be one of the 15.

[CGowen]

54. here the online journal article link

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml

[indepat]

55. Gee, hope this is bullshit for if a nation so attacked the US, it would piss off 300 million people

[Egalitarian]

58. K & R Especially for the absurdity of this getting moved to the dungeon.

[JackRiddler]

59. This is so not happening on April 6th...

Can't vouch for Apr. 5th or 7th, but the Russian general's warning does have the effect of guaranteeing the cancellation of any plans to do it on Apr. 6th.

If they're going to go into Iran and complete the PNAC fuck-over of the ME, or if they're going to be impeached: the window for either exists until September or so.

[Make7]

60. Less than 18 hours to go. ( n/t )

[CGowen]

61. I think the Russian leak was successful in postponing it. n/t

[CGowen]

62. now it's end of April

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2795299

[SidDithers]

63. But if it's been leaked again...

won't it just be pushed back again?

Sid

[CGowen]

64. just end of april not 4:00 on friday nt

[Make7]

72. April 2007? ( n/t )

[SidDithers]

65. Kick...

oops...

Sid

[Big Pappa]

66. April 6

and all is well.

[barb162]

67. and about 65 minutes until 4/7 and still all is well

[greyl]

68. They must be really farging sneaky.

I didn't notice a thing.

.......


We'd have to admit, though, that any publicized leak of supposedly secret plans of attack could result in some editing of those plans.

Still, I don't see any evidence to believe it was ever likely.

[MervinFerd]

69. Bump. Because it's 8 April and Iran is uninvaded.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

70. This is what happens

when LaRouchies have had too much sugar in their coffee.

[CGowen]

71. Pentagon officials offered a series of military options to scare Iran during the sailors’ dispute

Citing unidentified diplomatic sources, The Guardian newspaper reported that Pentagon officials offered a series of military options to scare Iran during the sailors’ dispute, but Britain told them to stay out of the affair and tone down armed forces activity in the Persian Gulf.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070408&articleId=5303


In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2051971,00.html

[SidDithers]

73. Kick...

any revised predictions from Mr. Tarpley?

Sid

[wildbilln864]

74. none needed!

Ever consider the possibility that it didn't happen because of warnings like this?
Nah!

[Ordr]

75. Kick.

Maybe they meant this April 6th. :)

[HuffleClaw]

76. isn't this the same guy who predicted much the same thing LAST YEAR?

i'm dubious

[seemslikeadream]

77. I'm not

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/3/11/6-signs-the-us-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3039228

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Care to make a wager? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Good thing you didn't take me up on this wager. n/t

[SidDithers]

80. And ANOTHER April 6 goes by without an attack...

anyone placing bets for 2009?

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

81. Ah, crap. I meant to keep an eye out for this.

LOL!

LaRouche, LaRouche!
LaRouche is on fire!

[jberryhill]

83. Thanks for posting that, Sid

Webster Tarpley's new book is out:

http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Postmodern-Webster-Griffin-Tarpley/dp/0930852893/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219509939&sr=8-1%22

Obama - The Postmodern Coup

Barack Obama is a deeply troubled personality, the megalomaniac front man for a postmodern coup by the intelligence agencies, using fake polls, mobs of swarming adolescents, super-rich contributors, and orchestrated media hysteria to short-circuit normal politics and seize power.

[MinM]

84. Thanks, Rep, for putting these scumbags on notice...

and heading off the next 9/11. :patriot:

[Bolo Boffin]

85. You have GOT to be kidding me.

You don't honestly believe that reprehensor helped head off the last dark fantasy of Tarpley, do you?

:eyes:

[MinM]

86. IIRC your boy Chertoff had a 'gut feeling' about attacks that never...

came to fruition. So I support Rep's efforts to shine a light on these matters. My guess would be that he'd be more circumspect of information coming from the likes of Chertoff and Tarpley in the future.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. If you have any evidence that Chertoff is "my boy," the moderators would be interested in it.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up with your idiotic attacks.

[SidDithers]

88. Is Operation Bite officially dead, now that Obama's in charge?...

Or are there those who'll still defend Tarpley?

Sid